Fourth, in violation of the FAA, the court found that the California court`s language focused solely on how the “laws of your state” would apply in the context of the arbitration and not in generally applicable terms. Id. at p. 9. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in DirecTV, Inc.c. Imburgia upheld a binding arbitration clause in a consumer services contract that included a waiver of class arbitration. The decision reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court`s view on the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act and its application in contracts theoretically governed by state law. In the end, the victims of last fall`s rushcard failure narrowly avoided disaster.
In a surprising and unusual response to public pressure, the company waived its own arbitration clause and recently reached a $19 million settlement with all affected individuals. Millions of victims in other cases probably won`t be as lucky, and most companies probably won`t be as benevolent. Fortunately, some federal agencies and members of Congress are trying to reverse this practice to ensure that people are not excluded from the courthouse when they are harmed by a product or service – even if they face an uphill battle in the process. In a number of decisions since the early 1980s, the Supreme Court has increasingly defended the use of binding arbitration clauses where they exist in contracts. These arguments concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act replaces other consumer and employee laws and protections. In response, a number of federal agencies are trying to restrict the use of these terms in contracts in order to protect consumers and workers. Here are some examples: the economically weakest people are also the most likely to be affected by these clauses. Just as Yvonne Cardwell, the Whataburger employee, was told she would have to travel for several hours if she wanted to be present when an arbitrator reviewed her case, products aimed at low-income families are often more likely to contain arbitration clauses. A recent report by the Century Foundation found that 98% of students who receive federal funding to attend for-profit schools have an arbitration clause in enrollment agreements that students must sign before going to school. Notably, virtually no public or non-profit higher education institution in the study used arbitration clauses applied in their enrollment agreements – only for-profit institutions. Given the poor record of profiteers, this is troubling: of the students who enrolled in these schools in 2001 and 2002 and received federal financial support, 57% earned less than $25,000 a year 10 years later, suggesting that the economic benefits of their programs were limited. Just as prepaid cards and payday loans often contain arbitration clauses, these clauses in for-profit colleges reduce institutional accountability for places that serve the most economically vulnerable.
This is perfectly legal, due to the Federal Arbitration Act, a 1925 law designed to help companies resolve their contractual disputes quickly and easily out of court by validating agreements by private arbitrators. Over the past three decades, courts have adopted a broader view of arbitration clauses to include relationships between businesses and individuals; Since then, these clauses have become ubiquitous in contracts and determine how potential disputes are handled long before a dispute arises. Clauses may include prohibitions on participation in class actions, as well as requirements that individual disputes be subject to arbitration. However, regulators and members of Congress concerned about arbitration clauses face an uphill battle. In 2015, Congress considered blocking the CFPB`s arbitration rule as part of its year-end budget deal, and that could happen again this year. Meanwhile, Congress has tried to prevent the Department of Defense from implementing President Obama`s executive order, which allows military contractors to sue their employers for civil rights claims and claims related to sexual assault or abuse. Arbitration, as a brutal tool for dealing with disputes, may not disappear on a large scale in the foreseeable future. Overall, the Imburgia decision should be practical for companies that use arbitration clauses and class arbitration waivers in standard consumer contracts, even if these provisions are governed by state law.
In response, one would expect users to sue. Even if individual victims did not opt for a lawsuit because of the costs involved, a lawyer could file a class action lawsuit to represent thousands of aggrieved consumers. However, customers had already – largely unknowingly – accepted a mandatory arbitration clause in the fine print of their card contracts. This effectively infringed their right to sue individually or through a class action. Under such a clause, individuals waive their right to a civil trial by jurors under the Seventh Amendment in favor of meeting with an arbitrator — a person chosen by the relevant society — to serve as judges and jurors. .
Recent Comments